Re: [PATCH] bash completion: Hide more plumbing commands

From: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
Date: Sep 3, 2008, 22:23 UTC
Message-ID: <20080903222350.GC10360@machine.or.cz>
In-Reply-To: <7v1w0bab1c.fsf@gitster.siamese.dyndns.org>

On Tue, Aug 26, 2008 at 11:25:35AM -0700, Junio C Hamano wrote:

Show 22 quoted lines

> "Shawn O. Pearce" <spearce@spearce.org> writes:
> 
> > Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz> wrote:
> >> git <tab><tab> still shows way too many commands, some of them
> >> are clearly plumbing. This patch hides the plumbing commands
> >> liberally (that is, in special cases, users still might want to
> >> call one of the hidden commands, a *normal* workflow should never
> >> involve these, though - and if it does, we have a UI problem anyway).
> >> 
> >> Signed-off-by: Petr Baudis <pasky@suse.cz>
> >
> > Acked-by: Shawn O. Pearce <spearce@spearce.org>
> >
> > Though I use git ls-remote at least once every other day to see
> > what branches are available on my egit/spearce.git fork.  Its ok,
> > I guess I can type a few extra characters...
> 
> Revision-requested-by: me
> 
> Unless/until we have an easy way to obtain the information "git-ls-files
> -u" gives during conflict resolution, ls-files should stay on the list of
> commonly used commands.

I started on a patch, but frankly, I hate it. Adding such a filtering to git-status is quite invasive, while I believe that it's simply not worth it - I have yet to encounter a situation with git when simply looking at either git diff or plain git status is impractical to check which files need to be merged yet, so I don't want to expend energy on a patch which is going to be ugly and useless by my belief.

If you do insist that we need this functionality, can you please just drop the git ls-files bit from the patch, or should I resend it?

Thanks,

-- 
				Petr "Pasky" Baudis
The next generation of interesting software will be done
on the Macintosh, not the IBM PC.  -- Bill Gates